Boris Johnson messed up in many ways. But he never messed up in a way that made you look at your bank statement and think 'that wazzock could cost me my home'.
That's a new one. But it's what Prime Minister Liz Truss and Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng have done for many mortgage holders coming off deals, so it's no surprise that many Tories fear the damage is terminal. That means it would be no surprise if the Prime Minister ignored all calls for an election until 2024. But she shouldn't.
What Truss is promising is not what people were promised in 2019. Much of it seems to involve making things a bit more rubbish for ordinary people - apparently in the short-term, in order to chase an abstract idea of growth - in the medium to longer term.
READ MORE: We asked people on the streets how they're coping. It took five minutes before someone cried
She says she had to 'act quickly'. She might not have had to act so quickly if so much time hadn't been spent on choosing a leader. A leader who caused 'disruption' - in her own terms - with a bold plan that has never been put before the electorate.
First of all we had the debt-fuelled tax cuts for the wealthiest of us - those of us more likely to save or invest the extra cash, or spend it on a foreign holiday, than in the corner shop, tax cuts which, as soon as they were announced, drove up the cost of borrowing and almost collapsed pension funds, as currency and bond markets reacted violently.
Then we learned that 'departmental efficiencies' are likely on the way, ie austerity, in an attempt to balance the books. Can Manchester really stomach more of this? What use is a tax cut if, God forbid, we should need an ambulance or a police officer in an emergency?
One thing the government doesn't talk about enough is the fact we have an ageing population, with the number of people aged over 65 making up around fifth of the population, expected to increase to a quarter by 2043. It's arguably one of the reasons why we have less growth, as older generations leave the workforce and change their consumption habits.
The demographic reality of an ageing population makes new demands on health, social care, and housing. How are we going to fund this with less?
The Manchester Evening News has consistently reported on homelessness, child poverty, on issues within our NHS, with policing, many of which can be directly linked to lack of funding in the years since 2010 - for everything from Surestart centres, to cuts to officers who understand the streets.
We've reported on Greater Manchester's social care crisis, with staff 'begged to stay' by the people they visit in their homes, only able to give clients 15 minutes a day as colleagues leave an underpaid, overworked, under-funded sector.
It's not an exaggeration to say there isn't a corner of Greater Manchester that hasn't been affected by austerity. In the city centre we saw an explosion of rough sleepers. In the poorest boroughs we saw children going hungry. Even in the wealthiest borough in Greater Manchester, we saw litter pile up on the streets, from Altrincham to Old Trafford, as the council entered into an impossible contract against a backdrop of declining budgets.
We know that there's a belief in 'free market' circles that the public sector wastes a fortune and if only we did this, this and this it would free up loads of money for what really matters. But after 12 years in office, the Conservatives haven't shown how this can be achieved - indeed, despite all those years of austerity, the national debt stands at around £2trn - double what it was when they took office.
Do we really want more of this? Whether we do or not, we should have a say, since it's a departure from what Boris Johnson promised.
Most Greater Mancunians did not vote for Tory candidates in the 2019 election. But whether we did or not, we all recognised the change in the ruling party's rhetoric - the promise of 40 new hospitals, the acceptance, in the promise of Levelling Up, that towns across the north, including in Greater Manchester, had not recovered from the deindustrialisation of the eighties, and that while the south east benefitted from the prosperity generated by the City and generous transport spending, we had been neglected.
Where do those promises lie now? Can 'Levelling Up' be achieved against a background of austerity, and if so how might Liz Truss' 'supply side reforms' enable it? We don't know - but if we had an election, she could explain her reasoning fully, and have a mandate for any change of direction.
Do you think a General Election is necessary? Have your say in our comments.
There is, of course, the argument that Covid and Ukraine changed everything, and so that Truss can't reasonably be held to Johnson's promises. But neither of those events came out of the blue - and there are arguments that we are in a weaker position, in the face of these threats, because of the way governments, of which Liz Truss and her colleagues were part, prepared for and handled the challenges those threats presented.
Either way, a significant change in direction in policy, approved only by those Tory party members who voted for Truss, should be put to the people.
Over the coming weeks we can expect to hear Truss' plans to relax the visa regime to bring in skilled and unskilled workers the country needs. What kind of services will these workers be welcomed to?
Ones cut to the bone by a new round of austerity? How does this sit alongside previous policies which caused such division, disruption, or just plain misery - the hostile environment, the Windrush scandal, Brexit (which poses its own challenges to growth) - aren't we owed an explanation?
There are many other questions. Where does Truss' ally Suella Braverman's language about a 'Benefits Street' culture point to? How do we feel about the idea of the retirement age being lifted to 68? Does Liz Truss have the diplomatic skills not to prevent an existentially dangerous escalation of the Russia situation?
These 'free market think tanks' who are so keen on her agenda, whose interests do they really represent? And is the growth she promises, the growth which we are told we must swallow bitter medicine for, achievable when we have near full employment, supply chain shortages, and war in Ukraine raising the risk of further energy shocks?
Crucially, are we to accept that Truss' chosen route is the only one to growth - when she hasn't had a mandate from the people?
Deregulation fans like to talk about declining productivity - and to use that to bash the workers of Britain with. But real, increased productivity doesn't come from not having that 11'o clock brew.
It comes from investment in skills, education, training and infrastructure, and technology. It's easy to rankle at green 'solutions' that seem to involve wealthy people with very high consumption lifestyles lecturing the rest of us about how we're killing the planet with ten nights in Tenerife.
But solutions focussed on the practical - like Manchester's hopes of making thousands of home energy efficient - demand investment in skills, manufacturing and infrastructure in ways that generate growth. Investment like this, and in housebuilding, new energy technologies, in transport and infrastructure, provide examples of how governments can stimulate economies, local and national, in co-operation with the private sector, without resorting to economic shock treatment or trickle down experiments which could only cost us more in the long run.
The economic fallout from Covid, the war in Ukraine, the energy price shock which has led to Truss' Energy Price Guarantee, as well as concerns about climate change, all point to a period when a reconstruction agenda will have to become fashionable again.
To date, around 550,000 people have signed a petition at petition.parliament.uk, to 'call an immediate general election to end the chaos of the current government'.
That's seven times as many people as signed the petition to get Holly and Phil sacked for jumping the queue to see the Queen lying in state, so folk clearly feel strongly about it. It isn't like there isn't a precedent - Theresa May called a snap election in 2017 to ensure she had a mandate, so did Boris Johnson two-and-a-half years later.
Here's what the government says in response to the petition.
"The United Kingdom is a Parliamentary democracy, not a Presidential one. Following the general election of December 2019, Members of Parliament of the governing party (the Conservative Party) were elected, such that there is a majority in the House of Commons. This remains the case. A change in the leader of the governing party does not trigger a general election – this has been the case under governments of successive political colours."
An M.E.N's journalist's job takes you to all kinds of proud homes in Greater Manchester. It's a privilege. Homes full of love, children's achievements lining the walls, in areas where people work two jobs to get by; luxury properties on roads with no pavements, behind high gates and intercoms.
But whether we guard our homes with hydrangeas, or a sword above the fireplace, the message from all of them is clear. Our homes are our castles - mess with them at your peril. But that's exactly what Truss and Kwarteng have done. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't fancy an election either.
READ NEXT:
